Key Points

• Court considers the ownership of assets situated at premises owned by the bankrupt in the context of limited relevant evidence
• Court emphasises the importance of joining the correct parties to litigation

The Facts

Key points

• Section 236 (inquiry into company’s dealings) does not have extra-territorial effect
• Section 237(3) (examination) only has extra-territorial effect where appropriate machinery exists in the foreign jurisdiction
• Taking of Evidence Regulation not available where litigation not commenced or contemplated

The facts

With the effect of 1 September 2015, Hungary introduces legal provisions on personal insolvency. Such procedure is reserved for private individuals (may they be entrepreneurs or consumers), who have debts between HUF 2 mln (approx. EUR 6,500) and HUF 60 mln (approx.EUR 195,000).

Under Hungarian insolvency law, creditors secured by mortgages or pledges are entitled to privileged satisfaction of their claim, meaning concretely that they are entitled to receive the whole proceeds reached in the course of the realization of the pledged property after deduction of the (i) cost of keeping the property in good repair and of maintenance, and costs of selling the pledged property; and (ii) the liquidator’s fee up to 5% of the net purchase price.

Key Point

The mere fact that the law of the country in which an asset is situated does not recognise the trust concept does not necessarily invalidate the trust at least as far as English Courts are concerned.

The Facts

Key Points

• The principle of modified universalism (being the principle underlying the common law power to assist foreign insolvency proceedings) continues to exist
• There is a common law power to order production of information to assist foreign insolvency proceedings
• Common law assistance does not enable office holders to do something they would not be able to do under the insolvency laws by which they are appointed

The Facts

Potential liability for wrongful trading

In Hungary the Act no. XLIX of 1991 on the insolvency and compulsory winding up procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Insolvency Act”) established the term “wrongful trading”. Under section 33/A of the Insolvency Act a manager of a company shall be personally liable if after the occurrence of threatening insolvency (i.e. when the company is unable to settle its liabilities when due) the director’s duties have not been fulfilled based on the priority of the company’s creditors’ interest.

Key Points

• Court cannot grant relief under the UK Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) where it could not provide such relief in a domestic insolvency.
• Even if such option were possible, court would not do so where a contract is governed by English law.
• Possibility of effectively applying provisions of foreign law under the CBIR restricted.

The Facts

Key Points

Where a sole director and shareholder of a company had breached fiduciary duties he could not ratify the breach if the company was insolvent;

Claims against the company in liquidation by dishonest assisting parties could not be set off under rule 4.90 Insolvency Rules against any liability they had in damages for that assistance.

The Facts